Options
Legitimation in the academic discourse of two earth science sub-disciplines
Author
Adamek, Pavel
Supervisor
Weninger, Csilla
Abstract
Researching (sub-)disciplinary literacy has a long tradition in English for Academic Purposes (EAP)/English for Specific Purposes (ESP). The main purpose of the research has been to illuminate how individual (sub-)disciplines vary in their communicative practices, mostly in the usage of individual linguistic features (e.g., stance nouns) or in information structuring of research article sections. The number of (sub-)disciplines studied this way is vast, although some fields have been on the margins of interest, such as earth sciences. Also, EAP/ESP research has focused little on larger principles underlying disciplinary knowledge building, and the linguistic features that reflect these principles, both at disciplinary and sub-disciplinary levels.
To partially fill these gaps, I select two representative earth science subdisciplines, marine chemistry and seismology, and integrate corpus-based investigations of 120 discussion and conclusion sections of experimental articles from 2012 to 2017 from the two sub-disciplines with an approach from the sociology of knowledge, Legitimation Code Theory (LCT). Through the lens of LCT’s Specialization dimension, I quantitatively show the degree to which knowledge and knowers are visible (prominent), and the level of authoritativeness (epistemic certainty) with which propositional content and knowers are presented. Specifically, I show that in the two sub-disciplines investigated, marine chemists present their specialist knowledge more visibly than seismologists, but seismology knowers figure more prominently than marine chemists. Conversely, knowledge in seismology is presented with a somewhat higher degree of epistemic certainty than in marine chemistry, but seismology knowers are overall less authoritative.
Further intriguing differences are revealed qualitatively. While disciplinary topical Themes concerned with objects of study strongly frame legitimate problems of both sub-disciplines, topical Themes concerned with methods and research products suggest that legitimate approaches in marine chemistry are framed less strongly than in seismology. Citation analyses identifying lead authors in both sub-fields show that few individuals are cited more than the rest. Types of knowledge that marine chemists are prominently cited for reveal that findings which are site-or area-specific and numerical may become obsolete faster, while comparable findings in seismology remain relevant throughout decades.
This research contributes to scholarship in multiple areas. First, I propose two new realisations of LCT’s Specialization–whose main premise is that practices comprise knowledge-knower structures that specialise actors and discourses–by operationalising relations to knowledge structures through topical Themes and hedging and boosting, while relations to knower structures are operationalised through citations and personal pronouns. Second, I empirically investigate Specialization quantitatively, which is rare in LCT research. Third, I illustrate qualitative differences in what disciplinary knowers are cited for, where prominent knowers are based, and suggest reasons for differing age of cited knowledge. Fourth, I expand EAP/ESP research into academic literacy by focusing on little explored earth sciences. The results can raise junior scholars’ awareness of the form of published (sub-)disciplinary knowledge and of the existing variability in the studied linguistic features, thus illuminating the potential for emphasis, highlighting, and self-promotion.
To partially fill these gaps, I select two representative earth science subdisciplines, marine chemistry and seismology, and integrate corpus-based investigations of 120 discussion and conclusion sections of experimental articles from 2012 to 2017 from the two sub-disciplines with an approach from the sociology of knowledge, Legitimation Code Theory (LCT). Through the lens of LCT’s Specialization dimension, I quantitatively show the degree to which knowledge and knowers are visible (prominent), and the level of authoritativeness (epistemic certainty) with which propositional content and knowers are presented. Specifically, I show that in the two sub-disciplines investigated, marine chemists present their specialist knowledge more visibly than seismologists, but seismology knowers figure more prominently than marine chemists. Conversely, knowledge in seismology is presented with a somewhat higher degree of epistemic certainty than in marine chemistry, but seismology knowers are overall less authoritative.
Further intriguing differences are revealed qualitatively. While disciplinary topical Themes concerned with objects of study strongly frame legitimate problems of both sub-disciplines, topical Themes concerned with methods and research products suggest that legitimate approaches in marine chemistry are framed less strongly than in seismology. Citation analyses identifying lead authors in both sub-fields show that few individuals are cited more than the rest. Types of knowledge that marine chemists are prominently cited for reveal that findings which are site-or area-specific and numerical may become obsolete faster, while comparable findings in seismology remain relevant throughout decades.
This research contributes to scholarship in multiple areas. First, I propose two new realisations of LCT’s Specialization–whose main premise is that practices comprise knowledge-knower structures that specialise actors and discourses–by operationalising relations to knowledge structures through topical Themes and hedging and boosting, while relations to knower structures are operationalised through citations and personal pronouns. Second, I empirically investigate Specialization quantitatively, which is rare in LCT research. Third, I illustrate qualitative differences in what disciplinary knowers are cited for, where prominent knowers are based, and suggest reasons for differing age of cited knowledge. Fourth, I expand EAP/ESP research into academic literacy by focusing on little explored earth sciences. The results can raise junior scholars’ awareness of the form of published (sub-)disciplinary knowledge and of the existing variability in the studied linguistic features, thus illuminating the potential for emphasis, highlighting, and self-promotion.
Date Issued
2022
Call Number
P120.A24 Ada
Date Submitted
2022